Answer in Opposition to Emergency Motion to Obey Order

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,

Plaintiffs, 

v
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al, Civil Action

Defendants, No. 35257

and

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
LOCAL 231 AMERICAN FEDERATION 
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

De fendant-Inte rvenor,

and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,

Defendants-Intervenors,
et a l .

/

ANSWER OF STATE DEFENDANTS IN OPPOSITION TO 
THE EMERGENCY MOTION OF DEFENDANT BOARD OF 
EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY 
OF DETROIT TO ORDER THEM AND OTHER STATE OFFICIALS 
TO OBEY THE COURT'S ORDER OF JULY 7, 1972, BY 
PROVIDING FUNDS TO KEEP THE DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
OPERATING FOR A FULL 180 REGULAR DAYS OF INSTRUCTION.

FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General

Eugene Krasicky 
Gerald F. Young 
George L. McCargar

Assistant Attorneys General

Business Address:
720 Law Building
525 West Ottawa Street
Lansing, Michigan 48913

Attorneys for Defendants 
Governor, Attorney General, 
State Treasurer, State Board of 
Education and Superintendent of 
Public Instruction



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,

Plaintiffs, 

v

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al,

Defendants,

and

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,
LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERATION 
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendant-Intervenor,

and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,

Defendants-Intervenors,
et al.
_________________________________________________/

ANSWER OF STATE DEFENDANTS IN OPPOSITION TO 
THE EMERGENCY MOTION OF DEFENDANT BOARD OF 
EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY 
OF DETROIT TO ORDER THEM AND OTHER STATE OFFICIALS 
TO OBEY THE COURT'S ORDER OF JULY 7, 1972, BY 
PROVIDING FUNDS TO KEEP THE DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
OPERATING FOR A FULL 180 REGULAR DAYS OF INSTRUCTION.

Now come William G. Milliken, Governor; Frank J.

Kelley, Attorney General; Allison Green, State Treasurer;

State Board of Education and John W. Porter, Superintendent of 

Public Instruction, called, collectively, state defendants, by 

their attorneys, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, et al, and 

answer and oppose said motion as follows:

1. Answering paragraph 1, they show that unless the 

order of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dated November 

27, 1972, dismissing a similar motion, is construed as a partial 

vacation of the stay order of said court entered July 20, 1972,

Civil Action 

No. 35257



the injunctive order of this Court of July 7, 1972, has been stayed. 

A copy of the July 20, 1972 stay order of the Court of Appeals 

for the Sixth Circuit is attached hereto as Appendix 1.

Further, they show that this Court's injunctive order 

of July 7, 1972, was issued in the context of and was ancillary 

to this Court's order of June 14, 1972, for a metropolitan plan

of desegregation, which plan is one of the orders of this Court
I : — .

which has been appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit and stayed by that Court in its order of July 20, 1972.

The appeal was argued before said Court of Appeals on August 24, 

1972, and the state defendants verily believe that the appeal may 

be decided by said Court of Appeals in the near future.

Further, this Court's injunctive order of July 7, 1972, 

was based in part upon the following finding of fact:

" . . .  [A]nd the Court finding that a 
metropolitan plan of desegregation com­
plying with such criteria cannot be 
implemented in the event the city of 
Detroit school system is on a school year 
of 117 days, or 63 days less than the 
minimum statutory requirement, while other 
school districts in the desegregation 
area comply with such statutory re­
quirement; . . . . "

2. Answering paragraph 2, the state defendants admit 

the allegations thereof and further show that the primary 

reason for defendant Detroit Federation of Teachers seeking an 

injunction was to protect the income of its members, the Detroit 

teachers, as also appears from a letter dated November 22, 1972, 

from the attorneys for the Detroit Federation of Teachers to 

defendant Detroit Board of Education, a copy of which is attached 

hereto as Appendix 2. Further, the state defendants show that the 

Detroit Federation of Teachers has standing only to represent itself 

and its members in this action.

-2-



3-4. Answering paragraphs 3 and 4, the state defendants 

admit that the Honorable Stephen J. Roth on June 30, 1972, made 

the remarks stated therein, but the state defendants show that 

said remarks were not incorporated into the injunctive order of 

July 7, 1972.

They further show that the statutes of the State of 

Michigan, 1955 PA 269, § 575, as amended, MCLA 340.575; MSA 15.3575, 

require all Michigan school districts to provide at least 180 

days of student instruction, and that defendant Detroit Board of 

Education's threatened refusal to comply with the laws of the 

State of Michigan requiring 180 days of student instruction, by 

closing the schools in January and February, 1973, when funds are 

available to operate such schools, is not a valid basis for the 

relief sought herein.

5. Answering the allegations of paragraph 5, the 

state defendants show that in spite of the exculpatory allegations 

contained therein, the real reason for the financial problems of 

defendant Detroit Board of Education is its persistent failure to 

tailor its spending to its revenues during the period of the past 

5 years, coupled with the refusal of its electors to approve 

increases in the tax rate limitation for school operating purposes 

in the school fiscal year 1972-73. See affidavit of Robert N.

McKerr filed herewith.

As also appears from the affidavit of Robert N. McKerr, 

the state equalized value per pupil (the measure of a school 

district's financial ability to provide local tax revenues) is 

$20,561.00 for the Detroit school district while the average for 

all school districts in the State of Michigan is $20,277.00. As 

further appears from said affidavit, the average levy for operating 

purposes for all school districts in the State of Michigan is 

slightly in excess of 24.0 mills.

-3-



Defendant Detroit Board of Education levied 15.51 mills 

for school operating purposes in the school year 1972-73, 

approximately 9.5 mills less than the state-wide average. For the 

school fiscal years beginning in 1967 and ending in 1972, the 

Detroit Board of Education levied 20.76 mills for school operating 

purposes in each year except the fiscal year 1971-72, when it 

levied 20.80 mills. Thus it is apparent that defendant Detroit 

Board of Education is possessed with slightly above average wealth 

to finance its schools, and that part of its financial problem is 

its failure to levy an average tax rate on this wealth in comparison 

to other Michigan school districts.

Moreover, the state defendants show that the salary 

schedule for Detroit school teachers has been determined primarily 

by the average of the seven highest salary schedules of the school 

districts in the tri-county area of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb, 

most of whom levy tax rates for school operating purposes at 

least 10 mills higher than the 15.51 mills currently levied by 

the Detroit Board of Education. Further, although the Detroit 

Board of Education may not have increased its salary schedule in 

the year 1972-73, salary increases were paid teachers by reason 

of longevity increments.

From the express admission found in subparagraph C of said 

paragraph 5, with the advance of state aid funds in the sum of 

$22,000,000 (see affidavit of Robert McKerr), there is no present 

emergency for the closing of the Detroit schools and it is apparent 

that the Detroit Board of Education is seeking to create an emergency 

by claiming that the interests of education require closing of the 

schools. The interests of education require that the schools be kept 

open as required by state law, and the Detroit Board of Education 

admits that funds are available to keep the schools open until at 

least mid-March, 1973.

-4-



By the express admission in the affidavit of Harold 

Brown, the Detroit Board of Education knew that it was heading 

for a financial crisis since 1960. Yet, by the express admissions 

found in subparagraph D of paragraph 5 of the motion, it was not 

until the last 30 months that any efforts have been made to face 

up to this problem.

6. Answering paragraph 6 of said motion, the state 

defendants show that said paragraph contains an express admission 

that there is no emergency because the Detroit public schools 

can operate until at least mid-March, 1973. Further, as appears 

from said affidavit of Robert McKerr, the fiscal plight of the 

Detroit schools has been under constant consideration by state 

defendants and other state officials and members of the legislature, 

and the state defendants verily believe that a means for providing 

180 days of student instruction in the Detroit schools in accordance 

with state law will be found by the legislature by mid-March, 1973.

Attached hereto as Appendix 3 is a copy of the press 

release by legislative leaders in this regard.

7. Answering paragraph 7, the state defendants submit 

that it is state law, which operates state-wide, and not the 

Fourteenth Amendment that requires the Detroit Board of Education 

to provide its students with 180 days of instruction. It is 

defendant Detroit Board of Education, not the state defendants, 

which threatens to close the schools on December 21, 1972, although, 

through the efforts of the state defendants, funds have been made 

available to the Detroit Board in accordance with state law, to 

keep the schools open through mid-March, 1973.

8. Answering paragraph 8, the state defendants show 

that the Detroit Board of Education may not seek relief in this 

Court for its own threatened failure to comply with the laws of

-5-



the State of Michigan requiring 180 days of student instruction.

9. The allegations of paragraph 9 of said motion 

are predicated upon three assumptions: (1) That there will be

a financial savings to the Detroit schools if they remain 

closed during the period between December 21, 1972 and February 

19, 1973. (2) That it is more sound educationally to have a

two month break in student instruction rather than to operate 

school until revenues are exhausted; and (3) That the Detroit 

schools will not be assisted by the Michigan legislature in 

operating schools for 180 days. The state defendants submit 

that either these assumptions are patently false, or of such 

doubtful validity as not to warrant relief in this Court.

As appears from the letter of November 22, 1972 from 

the attorneys of defendant Detroit Federation of Teachers to 

defendant Detroit Board of Education and said affidavit of Robert 

McKerr, under their contract with the Board of Education the 

teachers in the Detroit schools are entitled to compensation 

during the period between December 21, 1972 and February 19, 1973, 

even if the Detroit Board should attempt to close the schools 

during this period. Therefore, the closing of the schools for 

the two month period would result in minimal, if any, financial 

savings, since 71% of its budget is for instructional salaries. 

(See affidavit of Robert N. McKerr). The teachers' contracts may 

be terminated on April 15, 1973, upon the giving of 60 days prior 

notice. Thus, from a purely fiscal point of view, there would be 

no significant financial saving in closing the schools during 

January and February, 1973, during which period the defendant 

Detroit Board of Education is contractually obligated to pay its

teachers but the students would not receive the benefit of their
:

services.

-6-



The unsupported statement that there would be less 

anxiety in the instructional courses for students if there were 

a two month break rather than if the schools closed early has no 

support outside of the naked allegation, particularly in view of 

the fact that every effort is being made by the state defendants 

and other state officials to provide for 180 days of instruction 

in the Detroit schools. The state defendants respectfully submit 

that these proposals to suspend the Detroit schools between 

December 21, 1972 and February 19, 1973, appear to be no more 

than a device to create an emergency so that a claim of emergency 

may be made by the Detroit schools to this Court.

In view of the efforts made to date by the state 

defendants to provide the Detroit public schools with the means 

of operating for 180 days of student instruction and the success 

of these efforts to date, there is no reason to believe that the 

means will not be found by the Michigan legislature, given 

sufficient reasonable time to explore the alternatives, to assist 

the Detroit public schools in operating for the 180 day statutory 

period. See Appendix 3 attached.

10. Answering paragraph 10, the state defendants show 

that the means have been provided for the operation of the Detroit 

public schools until at least mid-March, 1973; that no present 

emergency exists; that the requirement to operate for 180 days is 

found in the laws of the State of Michigan and not in this Court's 

order which was ancillary to a metropolitan desegregation plan 

that has been stayed; that the operation of the schools until mid­

March, 1973, is not educationally unsound, and that it is the duty 

of the Detroit Board of Education under the laws of the State of 

Michigan to do so, particularly as it will provide for the reasonable 

time needed by the Michigan legislature to respond to the needs of 

the Detroit public schools to operate for 180 days in the 1972-73

-7-



4

school year. See Appendix 3 attached.

11. Answering paragraph 11, the state defendants admit 

that there have been numerous meetings between members of 

defendant Detroit Board of Education and other officials thereof, 

the state defendants, or their representatives, and other state 

officials, but the state defendants deny that no sufficient aid 

has been forthcoming, and in support thereof show that the State 

Administrative Board has authorized the Superintendent of Public 

Instruction to advance state aid funds in the sum of $22,000,000 

to the Detroit school district, which amount will provide the 

means for the operation of the Detroit public schools until at 

least mid-March, 1973, by defendant Detroit Board of Education's 

own admission.

Further, the state defendants show that the power to 

levy taxes on the taxable property within the Detroit school 

district is vested in defendant Detroit Board of Education and 

not in the state defendants, and the power to appropriate the 

general funds of the State is vested by the people of the State of 

Michigan through the Constitution in the State legislature and not 

in the state defendants. The state defendants, as defendant 

Detroit Board of Education well knows, have neither the power to 

tax nor the power to appropriate.

12. Answering paragraph 12, the state defendants show 

that the legislature is presently in session and will continue to 

be in session until December 29, 1972, so that the calling of a 

special session is neither legally possible nor necessary. See 

Const 1963, art V, § 15. Further, as appears from said affidavit 

of Robert McKerr, members of the state legislature have been 

continuously apprised of the failure of the defendant Detroit Board 

of Education to provide the means for 180 days of student instruc­

tion within the district for the school year 1972-73. Also, see

-8-



*

Appendix 3 attached.

Further, as appears from said affidavit, the Attorney 

General, the State Treasurer, the Superintendent of Public 

Instruction and the State Board of Education have been in continuous 

communication between themselves and with members of the state 

legislature as to means and methods of redressing the failures of 

defendant Detroit Board of Education.

Defendant Detroit Board of Education has not adequately 

informed the Court of the numerous meetings between the state 

defendants,and between the state defendants, members of the 

legislature and the Detroit Board of Education or its representa­

tives at which the fiscal problems of the Detroit schools were 

discussed and solutions considered. The meetings are detailed 

in the affidavit of Robert McKerr. For example, as early as 

March 9, 1972, members of the legislature and some of the state 

defendants met with the representatives of the Detroit Board of 

Education on these problems. The action by the State Administra­

tive Board to authorize the advance of state school aid funds in 

the sum of $22,000,000 was the result of the November 14, 1972 

meeting between the state defendants or their representatives 

and representatives of the Detroit Board of Education. Nor does 

the Detroit Board of Education advise the Court of the meeting 

held on November 21, 1972, of the state defendants or their 

representatives, the Detroit Board of Education or their representatives 

and leaders from the Michigan legislature, including the chairmen 

of the appropriations committees, at which meeting the fiscal 

problems of the Detroit public schools were considered and solutions 

were discussed. Also, see Appendix 3 attached.

Further, provision has been made to advance funds, as 

authorized by law, through advance payment of $22,000,000 of state 

aid to the Detroit public schools, to provide for the operation

-9-



of said schools at least until March 15, 1973; but the Constitution 

of the State of Michigan, Art IX, § 17, prohibits any state officer 

from diverting funds from purposes for which they were appropriated 

by the legislature to purposes for which said funds were not 

appropriated.

To divert funds from other school districts to make 

them available to the Detroit Board of Education is not only 

contrary to law, but would create financial chaos in numerous 

other school districts, and require many of them to shorten their 

school year.

13. Answering paragraph 13, the state defendants show 

that the conditions about which the Detroit Board of Education 

complains came about as a result of its own failure to make 

adequate provision for the education of its pupils for 180 days of 

instruction as required by state law and its prospective refusal 

to operate its schools so long as it has the means to do so, 

until the middle of March, 1973, so that the Michigan legislature 

is given reasonable time to deal with the problem and assist the 

Detroit Board of Education in operating for 180 days in the 

current school year. See Appendix 3 attached.

14. Answering paragraph 14, the state defendants show 

that it is defendant Detroit Board of Education that threatens to 

close school on December 21, 1972, for a period of two months, 

contrary to and in violation of the laws of the State of Michigan, 

and in disregard of the recommendations of the Superintendent of 

Public Instruction, thereby precluding the Michigan legislature 

from having sufficient time to consider and respond further to the 

current fiscal problems as it has pledged to do on the next 

legislative session. See Appendix 3 attached.

15. Answering paragraph 15, the state defendants show,

-10-



contrary to the allegations thereof, that on or about November 23, 

1972, the defendants filed a motion virtually identical with the 

instant motion in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and 

that said motion was dismissed. That said motion to the Court of 

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit requested relief substantially different 

and less sweeping than the relief prayed for in the instant motion, 

but it did not seek the vacation of the stay order entered by the
t

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on July 20, 1972. However, 

for the purpose of this motion, the state defendants will concede 

that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled as if the 

July 7, 1972 injunctive order had not been stayed. The significance 

of the order to this Court, besides stating that this Court 

does have jurisdiction to hear a motion for the modification of 

the July 7, 1972 injunction, is the citation of the case of 

Kelley v Metropolitan County Board of Education of Nashville and 

Davidson County, Tenn, 463 F2d 732 (CA 6, 1972). In that case, 

the appellant sought a modification of the trial court's injunctive 

order on the grounds, inter alia, that the injunction exposed 

the children to the dangers of travel in old and inadequately 

maintained equipment. The Court of Appeals was puzzled as to why 

the appellants had not gone to the District Court to report those 

grievous circumstances, until the Court discovered that it was the 

appellant's own failure to provide adequate equipment that was the 

reason for the grievous circumstances. In this case there is an 

exact parallel, to wit, that it is the defendant Detroit Board of 

Education's own action in the form of a threat to close its 

schools, when through the efforts of the state defendant funds are 

available to keep them open, that is the reason for the grievous 

circumstances concerning which it seeks relief from this Court at 

this time.

-11-



16. Answering paragraph 16, the state defendants deny 

the allegations thereof for the reason that by the admissions of 

defendant Detroit Board of Education its schools have the means to 

run until at least mid-March, 1973.

17. Answering paragraph 17, the state defendants admit 

the allegations thereof, and show that the reason for non-con­

currence in the motion is set forth in this answer, the accompanying 

affidavit and their brief.

18. Answering the prayer for relief, the state defendants 

show that the facts alleged in the motion do not support the relief 

prayed for; that the power to levy general ad valorem property 

taxes for school operating purposes is vested in defendant Detroit 

Board of Education, not the state defendants, and that the power to 

appropriate state funds for school operating purposes is vested

in the Michigan legislature, not the state defendants herein.

Further, answering said prayer for relief, the state 

defendants show that through their efforts defendant Detroit 

Board of Education has the means to operate its schools until 

at least mid-March, 1973, and that leaders of the legislature have 

said that it will deal with the Detroit school districts' financial 

problems as soon as the legislature convenes for its 1973 session 

in January. See Appendix 3 attached.

WHEREFORE, The state defendants move the Court to 

deny and dismiss defendant Detroit Board of Education's emergency 

motion, or in the alternative, to dismiss said motion without 

prejudice to renewing same at a later date based upon a showing

-12-



of changed factual circumstances.

FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General

Eugene Krasicky
"■ ... .

Gerald F. Young 
George L. McCargar 
Assistant Attorneys

(

General

Attorneys for Defendants 
Governor, Attorney General, 
State Treasurer, State Board 
of Education and Superintendent 
of Public Instruction

Business Address:
720 Law Building
525 West Ottawa Street
Lansing, Michigan 48913

Dated: December 6, 1972

-13-



# 72-8002

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,
Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al,
Defendants-Appellants

and

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS 
LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERATION 
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendant-Intervenor
and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al,
Defendant s-Intervenors

Before: PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, EDWARDS and PECK, Circuit Judges.

The District Court has certified that certain orders 

entered by him in this case involve controlling questions of law, 

as provided by 28 U. S. C. §1292(b), and has made a determination 

of finality under Rule 54(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.

This court concludes that among the substantial questions 

presented there is at least one difficult issue of first impression 

which never has been decided by this court of the Supreme Court.

In so holding we imply nothing as to our view of the merits of this 

appeal. We conclude that an immediate appeal may materially advance 

the ultimate termination of the litigation. Accordingly, it is

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)) O R D E R
)
)
)
)
) •

)
)
)

F I L E D
JUL2 01972

JAMES A. HIGGINS, Clerk

APPENDIX 1



72-8002 - 2-

QRDERED that the motion for leave to appeal be and hereby is granted.

It is further ORDERED that the appeal in this case be 

advanced on the docket of this court and scheduled for hearing 

Thursday, August 24, 1972, at 9 a. m. The appendix and simultaneous 

briefs of all parties shall be filed not later than 25 days after the 

entry of this order. Reply briefs shall be filed not later than 

August 21, 1972. Typewritten appendix and briefs may be filed in 

lieu of printed briefs, together with ten legible copies.produced 

by Xerox or similar process. An appendix must be filed. The court 

will not entertain a motion to hear the appeal on the original record.

The motion for stay pending appeal having been considered, 

it is further ORDERED that the Order for Acquisition of Transportation, 

entered by the District Court on July 11, 1972, and all orders of 

the District Court concerned with pupil and faculty reassignment 

within the Metropolitan Area beyond the geographical jurisdiction 

of the Detroit Board of Education, and*all other proceedings in the 

District Court other than planning proceedings, be stayed pending 

the hearing of this appeal on its merits and the disposition of the 

appeal by this court, or until further order of this court. This 

stay order does not apply to the studies and planning of the panel 

which has been appointed by the District Court in its order of 

June 14, 1972, which panel was charged with the duty of preparing



72-8002 - 3-

interim and final plans of desegregation. Said panel.is 

authorised to proceed with its studies and planning during the 

disposition of this appeal, to the end that there will be no 

unnecessary delay in the implementation of the ultimate steps 

contemplated in the orders of the District Court in event the 

decision of the District Court is affirmed on appeal. Pending 

disposition of the appeal, the defendants and the School Districts 

involved shall supply administrative.and staff assistance to the 

aforesaid panel upon its request. Until further order of this 

court, the reasonable costs incurred by the panel shall be paid 

as provided by the District Court's order of June 14, 1972.

Entered by order of the Court.



D . C h a r l e s  Ma r s t o n  
W i l l i a m  Ma z e y  
T h e o d o r e  S a c h s  
R o b e r t  L .  O ' C o n n e l l  
J e a n n e  'Nu n n  
B e r n a r d  M, F r e i d  
Me l v y m  J .  K a t e s  
A .  D o n a l d  K a d u s h i n  
R o l l a n d  R. O ' H a r e  
R o n a l d  r . H e l v e s t o n  
R o b e r t  R .  C u m m i n s  
B a r r y  P .  W a l d m a n  
W . K e n n e t h  W r i g h t  
R o b e r t  G .  H o d g e s  
J a k e s  b . V e u C a s o v i c

URGENT

S A G I N A W  O F F I C E

2 1 0  B e a r i n g e r  B U I L D I N G  
S a g i n a w . M i c h i g a n  

P L e a s a n t  4 . 3 1 1 0

K.'
N i c h o l a s  J .  r o t h e . 

/  or COUNSEL

PONTIAC OFFICE  
P o n t i a c  S t a t e  B a n k  b l d g .

P o n t i a c . M/c h i c a n  
FED ER A L 4 - 0 5 8 2

Detroit Board of Education 
5057 Woodward

CERTIFIED MAIL 
RETURN RECEIPT
r e q u e s t e d

Detroit, Michigan 4S202 . . “ ----------

Attention: James A. Hathaway, President

Gentlemen:

As attorneys for the Detroit Federation of Teachers, and on 
its behalf, we write to advise you formally that we will regard 
any mid-year shutdown of the schools other than as provided in the 
parties' collective bargaining contract, to be:

(1) A violation by you and by the State defendants in ,
B radley v. M i lliken of Judge Roth's 180-day school year injunction;

. (2) A violation by you and by the State defendants of ap­
plicable state law to the same effect;

(3) An unfair labor practice by you;

(4) A violation by you of the parties' collective bargaining 
contract; and

(5) A violation by you of individual teacher contracts.

respect to the latter two items, we call to your attention 
applicable law which holds that your contractual obligations

APPENDIX 2

:



Detroit Board of Education —  page 2

to your employees may not be avoided by suspending their services, 
regardless of your motivating financial circumstances.’ Accord­
ingly, whether or not the schools remain open, in the event any 
regular payroll is not met or appears unlikely to be met we will 
seek a- money judgment against you for breach of contract and there­
after, as necessary, invoke applicable statutory law to spread 
the judgment on the tax rolls for collection.
We add that it is the primary concern of the Federation that Detroit 
school children not be deprived of equal and adequate educational 
opportunities, and so the first focus of our attention will be to 
endeavor to keep the schools open. Failing that, we will unter— 
take all appropriate action to enforce teachers' salary rights 
under their contracts.
We therefore request that you rescind all resolutions respecting 
shutdown for any extended period following December 21, 1972, and 
cease and desist from any other comparable action.

cc: George Roumell, Esq.
Aubrey McCutcheon, Esq.
Hon. William Milliken, Governor 
Hon. Frank Kelley, Attorney General 
DFT, Attn: Mrs. Riordan

Yours very truly

Theodore Sachs

TS: ek



PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
November 30, 1972

House and Senate leaders, meeting today, pledged top priority considera­

tion of efforts to solve the short-range and long-range financial problems of 

the public schools of Michigan. . .

The following statement was issued jointly by House Speaker William A. Ryan, 

House Minority Leader Clifford H. Smart, House Appropriations Committee Chairman 

William R. Copeland, Senate Republican Leader Robert VanderLaan, Senate Democrati 

Leader George S. Fitzgerald, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Charles 0.’ 

Zollar and Senate Democratic Floor Leader Coleman A. Young.

"Members of the Michigan Legislature are aware of and concerned about the 

financial difficulty facing the-Detroit Public School Board in attempting to 

fulfill its legal obligation to provide 180 days of education for nearly 1/7 

of the state's school children. In fact, there are strong feelings among 

legislative leaders as well as other members'that the Legislature must act to 

prevent a drastic reduction of educational services to children in Detroit and 

the many other school districts where deficits threaten a shortened school year.

"As leaders in our respective caucuses, we pledge today to give top priority 

to a speedy solution early in the next legislative session to the.financing of 

the required full 180-day school year for all Michigan schools for the 1972-73 •

school year and express considerable confidence that we will meet with success 

•in this effort. We further express our determination to simultaneously arrive 

at a solution to the long-range financing of schools throughout Michigan, without 

which there would be a disastrous continuation of fiscal crises,

APPENDIX 3



2

"We trust that this commitment to work out a legislative solution to the 

immediate financial crisis facing Detroit schools will encourage the Detroit 

School Board to reconsider its decision to close schools for 35 school days 

beginning December 21 and resolve to give the Legislature the time needed to 

fashion a reasonable solution." •

Governor Mi 11iken commended the legislative leaders for their "bipartisan 

efforts to help assure that all the school children of Michigan receive the 

education to which they are entitled."

Governor Milliken's office and legislative leaders will meet Friday 

afternoon and attempt to formulate reasonable legislative proposals for early 

consideration in the next session. We all hope we can be united in seeking a 

reasonable and equitable solution to the immediate Detroit school financial 

dilemma.

\

\